OPINION: Why I'm voting NO on "cascading" I-26 project

The vast majority of our region’s roadway funding and design decisions are made by the French Broad River metropolitan planning organization, of which I am a voting member. My position is to act as the “Urban Transit Representative” for the region.

On June 28, myself, two Asheville City Council members, two Buncombe County Commissioners, and nineteen of our esteemed elected and appointed colleagues from the region will be voting whether to push forward the “middle section” of the I-26 project, consisting of I-240 from Brevard Road to Haywood Road, by using an MPO funding maneuver known as “cascading.”

Doing so would essentially ensure this portion of the project is completed in concert with other portions of the I-26 project, at the cost of destroying valuable property and with the implied effect of entrenching the automobile as the only practical way to travel in our region. This issue isn’t an easy one, and it’s something we, as a region, have been wrestling with for nearly three decades.

So, to those who have experienced the endless debates, promises, revisions, debates, and, letters to the editor surrounding this seemingly endless process, I empathize with your struggles.

It may not be possible to relay my thoughts on the issue effectively or clearly enough to convince you that I’m nothing more than a roadblock, naysayer, or stick in the mud. Nevertheless, here are two main reasons why I’m planning to vote against “cascading” for this section of I-26: firstly, building this section of I-26 will render the utility of other forms of transportation less accessible or useful than they are today. And, this section of I-26, regardless of its final design, will require the demolition and removal of dozens of acres of some of the most vibrant, growing property in our entire region.

Let me be clear that I think highways are important, but highway planning and travel patterns were different thirty years ago than they are today. Per capita vehicle-miles driven was higher in 2002 than it is now, and for a myriad of reasons the future of our, essentially auto-only, transportation system should be questioned. That’s one reason why I also think that having other options on how to get around are so important. When so much money is poured into making driving faster and more convenient, our region – whether consciously or not – is deciding that those other options for getting around aren’t legitimate priorities. When free automobility is subsidized to such an incredibly disproportionate degree relative to other options, it is extremely difficult to consider any other way of getting around as a credible alternative.

While many are accustomed to gripes about the “lack of parking” downtown, the vast majority of residents of neighborhoods even within a few miles of downtown Asheville find themselves driving their own personal automobiles to downtown rather than hopping on a bus or bike. Not all, but many do so because there aren’t robust, credible alternatives to driving. Despite recent improvements, our bus system is still underfunded, and our roads are not currently designed to truly accommodate bicycles. And so we drive downtown, even when we might consider alternatives were they more robust and credible for most users. Widening I-26 will not relieve these issues but exacerbate them.

When scores of acres of such extremely limited and otherwise extremely valuable land are demolished to make way for highway expansions, the City of Asheville and our region, generally, collectively, and consciously allow one of our most precious resources to be depleted in lieu of being available for otherwise productive and responsible uses. Particularly in the City of Asheville, where land is extremely scarce, dedicating more land that is so close to downtown for highway widening purposes makes many of the City’s and the region’s livability goals far less achievable. By seizing and destroying property so close to downtown in order to subsidize free automobility, we’re saying that that land wouldn’t be better used to further our collective goals of increasing affordable housing or supporting businesses that might employ more workers and contribute more taxes to the region.

By widening a highway through West Asheville, we’re saying that the convenience for residents of the region, West Asheville included, to drive their own personal vehicles to downtown Asheville is more important than having robust options to take a bus or bike there nor are we respecting such options as credible alternatives. We’re saying that spending $81.7 million and permanently destroying critical parts of the city is a smart and wise decision.

A “no” vote to cascading funds will not create more affordable housing, solve our City’s bus system’s funding problems, or ensure we have safe, walkable communities. But voting against cascading funds is a vote to ensure that our region’s goals, values and its long-term viability outweigh the fleeting benefits a highway widening project through our region’s core might provide.